Overkill on records access

Friday

Aug 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Sarasota County Commissioner Joe Barbetta took serious offense this week because a member of the public spent a day "using our office space" and consuming the time of an office assistant who otherwise would have been at the beck and call of commissioners.

Commissioner Christine Robinson was "very upset over this ... the lost dollars and productivity." She didn't support Barbetta's demand that community activist (and possible County Commission candidate) Lourdes Ramirez) be billed for the costs of accommodating an unusual day-long inspection of records because "we screwed up."

Referring to the request for access to public records, Commissioner Carolyn Mason lamented: "I think we have been taken advantage of."

Let's put this in perspective:

Commissioners, who routinely agree to spend millions of dollars with little discussion, spent 45 minutes gnashing their teeth -- and, in some cases, hammering Administrator Randall Reid and his staff -- over one citizen's legal access to public records.

Why? Because the county put Ramirez in a conference room and assigned an office assistant to watch over her as she inspected the public records.

Oh, and the one-day cost of providing that monitor -- which could, or should, have been avoided -- was a couple hundred bucks.

The length of the debate, the intensity of the criticism and the professed concerns about protecting taxpayers' vital interests were overkill.

Barbetta obsessively demanded that he wanted Ramirez billed, as if he had unilateral authority to send citizens invoices for costs due. Robinson seemed to use the administration's failure to charge Ramirez a fee as another excuse to criticize Reid, as if a monumental screw-up had occurred.

The discussion, after all, was about public access to public records -- a right guaranteed by the Florida Constitution and state laws. What's more, Reid and a county communications officer made clear that the incident in question was an anomaly.

Single incident, minor costs

Although none of the commissioners used Ramirez's name, she had made a wide-ranging request to review documents related to land-use planning. The staff provided her with 17 boxes of material and access to a conference room to view -- and create self-made copies -- of the documents.

The volume of materials requested and the time spent inspecting were out of the ordinary. But there was no need for commissioners to focus a very public discussion on a single incident in which no harm was done and relatively minor costs were involved.

No one contests the county's obligation to maintain the integrity of its records. That is a serious duty. And, as Reid made clear, requests for public records have sharply risen; in some cases, fulfilling those requests requires significant efforts.

State law, an attorney general's opinion and a memo from the county's chief lawyer make clear that citizens can be charged reasonable costs for access to records. For instance, local governments can recoup the costs of extensive research or time-consuming production of records. If public employees must retrieve records from a warehouse, government can charge the hourly rate, including benefits, of the lowest-paid person capable of performing the task. If it's deemed necessary for an employee to directly oversee inspection of records, that worker's costs can be billed.

As the County Commission agreed on Wednesday, such costs -- if warranted -- should be assigned and billed consistently.

Serious concerns

But we have several serious concerns:

• The need for direct oversight of public-record inspection -- requiring the full-time assignment of a public employee -- should be the exception, not the rule.

Members of the public routinely review records at public counters or in open spaces in government offices -- where employees can reasonably monitor the inspection.

The case in question was unusual -- which goes to the point that the debate Wednesday was overblown. (Commissioner Nora Patterson, to her credit, raised concerns about the overreaction; even though Commissioner Charles Hines voted to bill Ramirez, he kept the matter in perspective and treated the staff respectfully.)

• Several commissioners failed to recognize the difficulty and risks of imposing a one-size-fits-all policy that conforms with public-records laws. Charges must be justified, reasonable and based on actual costs. Failure to comply with the terms of open-records laws would expose the county and taxpayers to liabilities far greater than the costs of reasonably providing access.

• The debate focused more on the price of direct oversight by a single employee in rare circumstances than on the pursuit of cost-effective strategies for ensuring the security of records open to public inspection.

Furthermore, no one asked the staff to give a realistic assessment of whether security of documents really is a pressing issue: In other words, in how many instances does the county have only one copy of particular documents? In such cases, shouldn't the county consider scanning those documents or making copies with smartphones, in order to preserve files and enhance security?

• If this incident had been raised as part of a broad discussion about handling records requests and the associated costs, the time devoted to it would have been understandable. But the debate's narrow focus made it appear more about political agendas and personal grievances than public policies.

Despite all the negativity, the fact is that today most records are in electronic form and can easily and inexpensively be transmitted to members of the public.

Certain requests require time-consuming actions, such as analysis and retrieval. In such cases, it is legal and fair for a local government, acting in the interest of taxpayers, to advise record-seekers of the potential costs -- calculated in advance, in compliance with state law -- and collect payment.

Unfortunately, the debate Wednesday fostered the appearance that a majority of commissioners are on the lookout for ways to charge members of the public for access to records they have already paid to create.